Should I warn other owner? (1 Viewer)

[Jersey35]

I've given up reading the entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating, but:If a person really doesn't have the time or inclination to play in a league that requires you to "start" players then why play in one? League membership is an "at will" kind of thing. And if you do, why would you be upset if you somehow forgot to check on a player's status because you were too busy with more important things? They were more important, it's up to you to decide what's more important and live with the consequences of your actions.For my part, the hobby is important enough to me that I'd call the commish in advance to make arrangement for my lineup to be adjusted should my questionable guy be determined out when I didn't have access. If it wasn't important enough for me to do this, I couldn't very well act as though it were important enough for me to get upset if someone didn't go out of their way to assist me.If you aren't playing a "best ball" type game, you are accepting that late scratches and zeros in lineups as part of the game, and as such, the knowledge of these things IS valuable and confers an advantage. It's always been my experience that the most successful teams ARE the ones that pay more attention. In that respect, any form of knowledge of a player's status imparted by the commissioner absolutely would be considered granting an advantage, or at least taking an advantage away from the other owner.As an owner, I would have no problem dispensing the information as I see fit. As commissioner, I'm going to keep out of it if I want to remain commissioner.

The guy missed one late-breaking inactive because he was working leading up to the Monday night game. I don't think that one instance should be extrapolated out to conclude he didn't care about his team or shouldn't be playing fantasy football.

I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear: I didn't mean to suggest either of those things - only that late news and inactives ARE a common part of a league that "starts" a lineup - otherwise you'd be playing best ball - and as such, information pertaining to a player's starting status IS valuable and DOES impact game outcomes, therefore, as commish, I certainly would avoid going out of my way to share that information with others to avoid losing my reputation for being impartial.My initial comments were merely meant to illustrate that if I have more important things to do at any given time than manage my team, then I don't manage my team at those times, and I have no expectations for a call or any sort of unasked for assistance.

The majority of your post makes a lot of sense to me. Obviously, nobody has the right to expect information be given to them and they could suffer the consequences if they didn't know Peterson was inactive. But I don't understand your last sentence. Why should an owner be allowed to tell but a commissioner not be allowed? If they're acting as an owner and not using their commish power to obtain the info, why can't they act like every other owner?You're worried about a "reputation for being impartial?" Either you're fair as a commish or you're not. You don't have to play by a separate set of rules just so you "look" a certain way to owners who want you to have a disadvantage. You get to be an owner just like everyone else.A commish cannot give any team an unfair advantage or use their commish power to help their team or any other team, or hurt any other team. They can't go in and change the waiver order. They can't tip you off as to how much someone else is blind-bidding. They can't change your opponent's lineup on their own because they have an inactive player in there. But they can do whatever a regular owner could do. If they see a story on ESPN, they can contact a fellow owner and share that info, just like any owner. You can say they "should" stay out of it, just like any owner, but they don't have to. There is no wall of silence that has to be maintained. Sharing ESPN info is not an unfair advantage. It's public. If any owner can make a call and share it, so can they. That's not using commish powers or the job of commish to help another team. They're sharing public info in the same manner as every other owner. The commish can do some things that other owners cannot do, and great care must be taken to ensure that those abilities are never used to help themselves or anyone else. But if it's public info and anyone can do it, the commish can as well. That's not using commish powers at all. That's doing what any owner can do, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Thanks for the reasonable response.To me, there's two things at play here: 1) Whether or not the information being discussed is valuable enough to impact the outcome of a game, and... 2) If so, whether sharing this information constitutes a breach of "commissioner privilege"It's clear that others may disagree, but for me, the information discussed here has value in most leagues. While we may say that it's "readily available public knowledge", obviously it's not THAT readily available, as one of your league members wasn't aware.Now, you're playing in a league that requires you start a lineup. This isn't best ball where the best lineup is automatically assumed. We've got an implied responsibility for starting a lineup and making choices over who to start and who to sit. While some of these choices come down to the talent and situation of said player, other times the choices are determined by the health of the player. Sometimes players miss games or play partial games due to injury resulting in less than optimal scores or zeros, and I'm guessing that generally speaking, these situations are accepted as part of the game.As such, a player's pregame injury status, though supposedly easy to come by, becomes valuable, game impacting information.Now as an owner, sharing or not sharing that information and potentially affecting the outcomes of games as a result is part of the gamesmanship involved in playing fantasy football - as is misinforming, friendly ribbing, and the like.But a commissioner's job necessarily separates them from the rest of the gang. No, not in every aspect of fantasy football, but yes, in some aspects.Being a commissioner is a bit of a privilege and an honor. Yea, big deal, right? But nonetheless, if you've got 9-11 people willing to trust you with whatever money and pride they've got on the line with their hobby, they are trusting in you to be fair and impartial - and they're expecting you to remain that way.Being a commissioner isn't always fun and is rarely easy. And it IS more difficult than being an owner because you can't make all of your decisions for the good of your team like the others can - at times you need to step outside your owner's shoes and put on your commissioner's shoes and make a fair and impartial decision that may result in a poor outcome for your team.In this particular case, I believe that by stepping in and giving a guy a "heads-up" to fix his lineup is overstepping your bounds as commissioner - since it impacts the outcome of the game. Let someone else do it - or heck, even call the guy's opponent and give him the option to share the information - but stay out of it as commissioner.You might be doing it out of a sense of impartiality and fairness, but understand that not everyone will see it that way - and unless you are consistently doing it for any and all teams, you'll potentially be viewed as partial and no longer trusted. Yes, appearances matter because whether or not you are trustworthy and impartial, if nobody believes it to be the case, it isn't so.It's often useful to take a scenario to it's most extreme case to ascertain what a good approach is.Let's say we agree that you aren't doing anything wrong, and in doing it this time doesn't mean you need to do it all the time for everyone - just when you happen to "catch it". What if, over the course of the next two years, just by chance, you end up catching this owner's (and only this owner's) lineup errors/misses/injuries whatever, and you end up - not intentionally mind you - helping them out 5 times, and helping other owners zero times. At what point do you think people start scratching their heads and wondering why you only help that owner? How many times does it have to occur before people start perceiving you as less than honest?Leave it be and avoid the doubts and ramifications. You're under no obligation to do this and affect the outcome of games, and doing so can only serve to eventually cost you. Unless you don't care or wish to be commissioner, then go ahead and do what you want.

 

[fsufan]

10 pages

 

[Flash]

It appears someone more cerebral should step in and help you out a bit, yes.

If anyone can convey the point(s) Mr. Ignoratio is attempting to make in a more eloquent, succinct and simplistic manner, please IM me.TIA.

See what's happening here is that side of the argument really has no basis, and they are starting with personal attacks. Dr. Awesome started yesterday.Pretty much tells you what is the right side here.

Remind me: Who was attacking someone for being so young? Hmmm...

I wasn't attacking him for being young, he came out and said it. Then after he told someone here he wasn't much of a man, I said that his youth was showing.Seriously man, read and comprehend what is said, not just what you want to read into it.

 

[Flash]

Maybe on the 10th page someone will finally post the rule they have in their league about sharing information before game time.

There shouldn't have to be a rule, it should be common sense.A commissioner should never influence the outcome of a game he his not involved in, especially when the outcome of the game directly affects his team and how much money others can win.Pretty simple.Simply put, the commissioner was going to play the winner of that matchup. Probably why he was looking at the rosters, to see who he would rather play. It should have ended there.I'd have less of a problem if the game had no direct impact on who he played next.I do not understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Thanks for the reasonable response.

To me, there's two things at play here:

1) Whether or not the information being discussed is valuable enough to impact the outcome of a game, and...

2) If so, whether sharing this information constitutes a breach of "commissioner privilege"

It's clear that others may disagree, but for me, the information discussed here has value in most leagues. While we may say that it's "readily available public knowledge", obviously it's not THAT readily available, as one of your league members wasn't aware.

Now, you're playing in a league that requires you start a lineup. This isn't best ball where the best lineup is automatically assumed. We've got an implied responsibility for starting a lineup and making choices over who to start and who to sit. While some of these choices come down to the talent and situation of said player, other times the choices are determined by the health of the player. Sometimes players miss games or play partial games due to injury resulting in less than optimal scores or zeros, and I'm guessing that generally speaking, these situations are accepted as part of the game.

As such, a player's pregame injury status, though supposedly easy to come by, becomes valuable, game impacting information.

Now as an owner, sharing or not sharing that information and potentially affecting the outcomes of games as a result is part of the gamesmanship involved in playing fantasy football - as is misinforming, friendly ribbing, and the like.

But a commissioner's job necessarily separates them from the rest of the gang. No, not in every aspect of fantasy football, but yes, in some aspects.

Being a commissioner is a bit of a privilege and an honor. Yea, big deal, right? But nonetheless, if you've got 9-11 people willing to trust you with whatever money and pride they've got on the line with their hobby, they are trusting in you to be fair and impartial - and they're expecting you to remain that way.

Being a commissioner isn't always fun and is rarely easy. And it IS more difficult than being an owner because you can't make all of your decisions for the good of your team like the others can - at times you need to step outside your owner's shoes and put on your commissioner's shoes and make a fair and impartial decision that may result in a poor outcome for your team.

In this particular case, I believe that by stepping in and giving a guy a "heads-up" to fix his lineup is overstepping your bounds as commissioner - since it impacts the outcome of the game. Let someone else do it - or heck, even call the guy's opponent and give him the option to share the information - but stay out of it as commissioner.

You might be doing it out of a sense of impartiality and fairness, but understand that not everyone will see it that way - and unless you are consistently doing it for any and all teams, you'll potentially be viewed as partial and no longer trusted. Yes, appearances matter because whether or not you are trustworthy and impartial, if nobody believes it to be the case, it isn't so.

It's often useful to take a scenario to it's most extreme case to ascertain what a good approach is.

Let's say we agree that you aren't doing anything wrong, and in doing it this time doesn't mean you need to do it all the time for everyone - just when you happen to "catch it". What if, over the course of the next two years, just by chance, you end up catching this owner's (and only this owner's) lineup errors/misses/injuries whatever, and you end up - not intentionally mind you - helping them out 5 times, and helping other owners zero times. At what point do you think people start scratching their heads and wondering why you only help that owner? How many times does it have to occur before people start perceiving you as less than honest?

Leave it be and avoid the doubts and ramifications. You're under no obligation to do this and affect the outcome of games, and doing so can only serve to eventually cost you. Unless you don't care or wish to be commissioner, then go ahead and do what you want.

I appreciate your position, but the bolded parts make no sense to me. It sounds like you're saying the commish has to be fair to all teams EXCEPT his own. That's not being fair. That's hurting one team in the name of looking "fair," and that's not right. The commish should be allowed to be an owner just like everyone else.If people think a commish acting like an owner makes them less "fair" then they should be shown the door. As long as the commish is fair and impartial as commish, they should be allowed to act like every other owner. If other owners want a robot programmed to hurt their own team in the name of fairness, they should find a packmule commish and join that league. There seem to be a couple in this thread who enjoy being treated that way.

As commish, the person has to be impartial and treat everyone the same while performing commish duties. But as an owner, they're not supposed to be impartial. They're supposed to want to win the league themselves, trash-talk opponents and do things other owners would do. I don't think you can get much more public than ESPN, and if the info is there it's okay to talk about it with anyone you want. And if it's okay for another owner to tell the opponent, it's okay for the commish. If people "see" them as being less fair because they're acting like an owner and they expected a robot...show them the door.

It's really not hard to separate the two. You can want to win and do everything another owner does...but when acting as commissioner, be impartial treat everyone the same. maybe some folks think it would be hard to do both in the heat of competition, but then those folks wouldn't make good commissioners. Like you said, it isn't easy.

Nobody is obligated to tell, and nobody should be prevented from telling. The commish can pick and choose what public knowledge he shares, but he cannot pick and choose how he treats the waiver wire, blind bidding, etc. If it's not part of the commish duties, it's in the domain of an owner and they're owners as well. You might think they have to act differently lest others "think" they're unfair but I say that's wrong. They have to BE fair as commissioner. People worry too much about perceptions. The main thing is to do your job fairly.

But this is not an example of a commish being unfair. It's an owner sharing what they heard on ESPN. If it was blind bidding or hidden rosters or something, I'd agree. But I understand that you see it differently.

 

[Flash]

As a commissioner, you have to know when to act as commish, and know when to act as an a owner.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

As a commissioner, you have to know when to act as commish, and know when to act as an a owner.

I'm surprised to read this from you. I agree completely. It's clear that when he told the opponent about Petrson he was acting as an owner. You said yourself he was playing the winner the following week. The commish doesn't earn an automatic bid in the playoffs, so it must have been an OWNER who was in the playoffs. The fact that he was commissioner doesn't matter."Acting as commish" would include looking at blind bidding or hidden rosters or something like that. This was clearly a guy who was looking at who his opponent was going to be the following week. Maybe he told the guy in the hopes that he'll face an easier team the following week. Smart move and totally above board.

 

[Flash]

As a commissioner, you have to know when to act as commish, and know when to act as an a owner.

I'm surprised to read this from you. I agree completely. It's clear that when he told the opponent about Petrson he was acting as an owner. You said yourself he was playing the winner the following week. The commish doesn't earn an automatic bid in the playoffs, so it must have been an OWNER who was in the playoffs. The fact that he was commissioner doesn't matter."Acting as commish" would include looking at blind bidding or hidden rosters or something like that. This was clearly a guy who was looking at who his opponent was going to be the following week. Maybe he told the guy in the hopes that he'll face an easier team the following week. Smart move and totally above board.

Exactly why as commish he should have kept his nose out.It comes down to this:

As a commissioner, you have to know when to act as commish, and know when to act as an a owner.

There's a fine line when you are commish.

 

[Summer Wheat]

This can`t possibly make 11 pages......can it???

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

As a commissioner, you have to know when to act as commish, and know when to act as an a owner.

I'm surprised to read this from you. I agree completely. It's clear that when he told the opponent about Petrson he was acting as an owner. You said yourself he was playing the winner the following week. The commish doesn't earn an automatic bid in the playoffs, so it must have been an OWNER who was in the playoffs. The fact that he was commissioner doesn't matter."Acting as commish" would include looking at blind bidding or hidden rosters or something like that. This was clearly a guy who was looking at who his opponent was going to be the following week. Maybe he told the guy in the hopes that he'll face an easier team the following week. Smart move and totally above board.

Exactly why as commish he should have kept his nose out.It comes down to this:

As a commissioner, you have to know when to act as commish, and know when to act as an a owner.

There's a fine line when you are commish.

Yous seem to be contradicting yourself. The commish has to know when to be commish, and when to be an owner-- I agree. But now "there's a fine line?" That seems to negate the "whent to be an owner" part. Why can't the commish be an owner? If it has nothing to do with his commish job, power, special logins or anything else...isn't he an owner in that case? Why does the commish have to have a hand tied behind their back when they're not acting as commish and not using any info obtained as commish?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

This can`t possibly make 11 pages......can it???

Why not? I need a distraction. I'm so over-matched in my Super Bowl I don't want to harp on matchups. I know the scrubs I have to start and now it will play out. This is a nice diversion from the ugly truth I'll face tomorrow. I hope it goes to 15 pages and rolls right through the games tomorrow. Plus, I'm right.

 

[Summer Wheat]

This can`t possibly make 11 pages......can it???

Why not? I need a distraction. I'm so over-matched in my Super Bowl I don't want to harp on matchups. I know the scrubs I have to start and now it will play out. This is a nice diversion from the ugly truth I'll face tomorrow. I hope it goes to 15 pages and rolls right through the games tomorrow. Plus, I'm right.

 

[Jersey35]

Thanks for the reasonable response.

To me, there's two things at play here:

1) Whether or not the information being discussed is valuable enough to impact the outcome of a game, and...

2) If so, whether sharing this information constitutes a breach of "commissioner privilege"

It's clear that others may disagree, but for me, the information discussed here has value in most leagues. While we may say that it's "readily available public knowledge", obviously it's not THAT readily available, as one of your league members wasn't aware.

Now, you're playing in a league that requires you start a lineup. This isn't best ball where the best lineup is automatically assumed. We've got an implied responsibility for starting a lineup and making choices over who to start and who to sit. While some of these choices come down to the talent and situation of said player, other times the choices are determined by the health of the player. Sometimes players miss games or play partial games due to injury resulting in less than optimal scores or zeros, and I'm guessing that generally speaking, these situations are accepted as part of the game.

As such, a player's pregame injury status, though supposedly easy to come by, becomes valuable, game impacting information.

Now as an owner, sharing or not sharing that information and potentially affecting the outcomes of games as a result is part of the gamesmanship involved in playing fantasy football - as is misinforming, friendly ribbing, and the like.

But a commissioner's job necessarily separates them from the rest of the gang. No, not in every aspect of fantasy football, but yes, in some aspects.

Being a commissioner is a bit of a privilege and an honor. Yea, big deal, right? But nonetheless, if you've got 9-11 people willing to trust you with whatever money and pride they've got on the line with their hobby, they are trusting in you to be fair and impartial - and they're expecting you to remain that way.

Being a commissioner isn't always fun and is rarely easy. And it IS more difficult than being an owner because you can't make all of your decisions for the good of your team like the others can - at times you need to step outside your owner's shoes and put on your commissioner's shoes and make a fair and impartial decision that may result in a poor outcome for your team.

In this particular case, I believe that by stepping in and giving a guy a "heads-up" to fix his lineup is overstepping your bounds as commissioner - since it impacts the outcome of the game. Let someone else do it - or heck, even call the guy's opponent and give him the option to share the information - but stay out of it as commissioner.

You might be doing it out of a sense of impartiality and fairness, but understand that not everyone will see it that way - and unless you are consistently doing it for any and all teams, you'll potentially be viewed as partial and no longer trusted. Yes, appearances matter because whether or not you are trustworthy and impartial, if nobody believes it to be the case, it isn't so.

It's often useful to take a scenario to it's most extreme case to ascertain what a good approach is.

Let's say we agree that you aren't doing anything wrong, and in doing it this time doesn't mean you need to do it all the time for everyone - just when you happen to "catch it". What if, over the course of the next two years, just by chance, you end up catching this owner's (and only this owner's) lineup errors/misses/injuries whatever, and you end up - not intentionally mind you - helping them out 5 times, and helping other owners zero times. At what point do you think people start scratching their heads and wondering why you only help that owner? How many times does it have to occur before people start perceiving you as less than honest?

Leave it be and avoid the doubts and ramifications. You're under no obligation to do this and affect the outcome of games, and doing so can only serve to eventually cost you. Unless you don't care or wish to be commissioner, then go ahead and do what you want.

I appreciate your position, but the bolded parts make no sense to me. It sounds like you're saying the commish has to be fair to all teams EXCEPT his own. That's not being fair. That's hurting one team in the name of looking "fair," and that's not right. The commish should be allowed to be an owner just like everyone else.If people think a commish acting like an owner makes them less "fair" then they should be shown the door. As long as the commish is fair and impartial as commish, they should be allowed to act like every other owner. If other owners want a robot programmed to hurt their own team in the name of fairness, they should find a packmule commish and join that league. There seem to be a couple in this thread who enjoy being treated that way.

As commish, the person has to be impartial and treat everyone the same while performing commish duties. But as an owner, they're not supposed to be impartial. They're supposed to want to win the league themselves, trash-talk opponents and do things other owners would do. I don't think you can get much more public than ESPN, and if the info is there it's okay to talk about it with anyone you want. And if it's okay for another owner to tell the opponent, it's okay for the commish. If people "see" them as being less fair because they're acting like an owner and they expected a robot...show them the door.

It's really not hard to separate the two. You can want to win and do everything another owner does...but when acting as commissioner, be impartial treat everyone the same. maybe some folks think it would be hard to do both in the heat of competition, but then those folks wouldn't make good commissioners. Like you said, it isn't easy.

Nobody is obligated to tell, and nobody should be prevented from telling. The commish can pick and choose what public knowledge he shares, but he cannot pick and choose how he treats the waiver wire, blind bidding, etc. If it's not part of the commish duties, it's in the domain of an owner and they're owners as well. You might think they have to act differently lest others "think" they're unfair but I say that's wrong. They have to BE fair as commissioner. People worry too much about perceptions. The main thing is to do your job fairly.

But this is not an example of a commish being unfair. It's an owner sharing what they heard on ESPN. If it was blind bidding or hidden rosters or something, I'd agree. But I understand that you see it differently.

People in positions of authority, trust, or power DO need to hold themselves to a different standard - this shouldn't really be news to anyone - because they have that power, trust and authority, they are subject to additional scrutiny. Presidents, school principals, sheriffs, doctors, hundreds of professions are all held to a higher standard, particularly when the standard lays within the boundaries of their chosen profession. I'm willing to bet that in this day and age, many people, learning that their family doctor was a smoker would likely think less of them as a medical practitioner, and quite possibly even change doctors. This despite the fact that the doctor has EVERY RIGHT to be a smoker. Whether you think the double-standard is fair or not doesn't change the fact that it exists - and it isn't going away. While a fantasy football commissioner is nowhere near as important a position as president (but closer to the school principal), the same expectations hold true.Being allowed to act as commissioner while owning a team is a privilege granted and implies a level of trust and faith in you to remain unbiased even when operating your team. I believe that choosing to "help a guy out" can and will be perceived as bias, and it's the sort of thing I'd avoid.

Of course you can want to and try to win, sharing or not sharing the information in the OP really has no bearing on whether you want to win or are trying to win or not. I don't see how whether or not you share this information prevents you in any way from fielding the most competitive team you can as an owner. It's fine that you disagree, but for me, I'll avoid this sort of gray-area stuff as commissioner and just win because I built a better team as an owner.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

People in positions of authority, trust, or power DO need to hold themselves to a different standard - this shouldn't really be news to anyone - because they have that power, trust and authority, they are subject to additional scrutiny. Presidents, school principals, sheriffs, doctors, hundreds of professions are all held to a higher standard, particularly when the standard lays within the boundaries of their chosen profession. I'm willing to bet that in this day and age, many people, learning that their family doctor was a smoker would likely think less of them as a medical practitioner, and quite possibly even change doctors. This despite the fact that the doctor has EVERY RIGHT to be a smoker. Whether you think the double-standard is fair or not doesn't change the fact that it exists - and it isn't going away. While a fantasy football commissioner is nowhere near as important a position as president (but closer to the school principal), the same expectations hold true.Being allowed to act as commissioner while owning a team is a privilege granted and implies a level of trust and faith in you to remain unbiased even when operating your team. I believe that choosing to "help a guy out" can and will be perceived as bias, and it's the sort of thing I'd avoid.Of course you can want to and try to win, sharing or not sharing the information in the OP really has no bearing on whether you want to win or are trying to win or not. I don't see how whether or not you share this information prevents you in any way from fielding the most competitive team you can as an owner. It's fine that you disagree, but for me, I'll avoid this sort of gray-area stuff as commissioner and just win because I built a better team as an owner.

There's a difference between being trustworthy and being perceived as trustworthy. The former is what's important. The latter could be a result of unrealistic expectations. If I expect my commish to hurt his own team in every disputed case I can claim he's "unfair" for trying to win. That doesn't make him any more or less honest. It makes me an idiot for having unfair expectations. Regarding your doctor example, I accept it as a fair one. The doctor has every right to smoke and does nothing wrong by smoking. If someone takes issue with it...that's their problem. That doesn't make him any less of a good doctor any more than acting like an owner makes a commish any less honest. if the person chooses another doctor as a result, they risk losing his excellent expertise over something that has NOTHING to do with his medical training, knowledge or skills. That's their problem, not his. I appreciate that example.I do think "implies a level of trust and faith in you to remain unbiased even when operating your team" is kind of funny. What fantasy owner is unbiased when it comes to their team? What owner doesn't care if they win or not? A commish wants to win just like you do. They can make trades where they "win" just like you. Their trades don't have to be "fair." They can try to get the better end of the deal! They can share information just like you. A commish HAS to be unbiased when running the league and treating each team fairly. A commish SHOULD be biased when it comes to being an owner and running their own team. As an owner they should want to win and want to beat everyone else, so I completely disagree with you. It's unfair to ask the commish to be unbiased when it comes to running their own team. If they're not biased in favor of their own team, who will be? As long as they're not using commish power or info to influence anything...they're allowed to be an owner. If some owners don't like that, show 'em the door. They're the ones missing out on the fairness and good stewardship of the commish. Being an owner who tries to win doesn't get in the way of running the league fairly to all owners. You have to want to win the right way. As commish I couldn't enjoy a win I didn't earn fairly. I'd never use commish powers or info to help my team or help or hurt anyone else's team. But I'm going to try and win just like every other owner, using info and abilities any owner would have. If that makes me "look bad," the problem is with their eyes, not my behavior.

 

[SWC]

right now there is a lot of snow out there and i bet you guys who say dont warn anyone would say dont tell anyone about the snow but then they would probably get in an accident and get hurt and then you would have that on your concience i hope you can live with yourselves.

 

[Jersey35]

People in positions of authority, trust, or power DO need to hold themselves to a different standard - this shouldn't really be news to anyone - because they have that power, trust and authority, they are subject to additional scrutiny. Presidents, school principals, sheriffs, doctors, hundreds of professions are all held to a higher standard, particularly when the standard lays within the boundaries of their chosen profession. I'm willing to bet that in this day and age, many people, learning that their family doctor was a smoker would likely think less of them as a medical practitioner, and quite possibly even change doctors. This despite the fact that the doctor has EVERY RIGHT to be a smoker. Whether you think the double-standard is fair or not doesn't change the fact that it exists - and it isn't going away. While a fantasy football commissioner is nowhere near as important a position as president (but closer to the school principal), the same expectations hold true.Being allowed to act as commissioner while owning a team is a privilege granted and implies a level of trust and faith in you to remain unbiased even when operating your team. I believe that choosing to "help a guy out" can and will be perceived as bias, and it's the sort of thing I'd avoid.Of course you can want to and try to win, sharing or not sharing the information in the OP really has no bearing on whether you want to win or are trying to win or not. I don't see how whether or not you share this information prevents you in any way from fielding the most competitive team you can as an owner. It's fine that you disagree, but for me, I'll avoid this sort of gray-area stuff as commissioner and just win because I built a better team as an owner.

There's a difference between being trustworthy and being perceived as trustworthy. The former is what's important. The latter could be a result of unrealistic expectations. If I expect my commish to hurt his own team in every disputed case I can claim he's "unfair" for trying to win. That doesn't make him any more or less honest. It makes me an idiot for having unfair expectations. Regarding your doctor example, I accept it as a fair one. The doctor has every right to smoke and does nothing wrong by smoking. If someone takes issue with it...that's their problem. That doesn't make him any less of a good doctor any more than acting like an owner makes a commish any less honest. if the person chooses another doctor as a result, they risk losing his excellent expertise over something that has NOTHING to do with his medical training, knowledge or skills. That's their problem, not his. I appreciate that example.I do think "implies a level of trust and faith in you to remain unbiased even when operating your team" is kind of funny. What fantasy owner is unbiased when it comes to their team? What owner doesn't care if they win or not? A commish wants to win just like you do. They can make trades where they "win" just like you. Their trades don't have to be "fair." They can try to get the better end of the deal! They can share information just like you. A commish HAS to be unbiased when running the league and treating each team fairly. A commish SHOULD be biased when it comes to being an owner and running their own team. As an owner they should want to win and want to beat everyone else, so I completely disagree with you. It's unfair to ask the commish to be unbiased when it comes to running their own team. If they're not biased in favor of their own team, who will be? As long as they're not using commish power or info to influence anything...they're allowed to be an owner. If some owners don't like that, show 'em the door. They're the ones missing out on the fairness and good stewardship of the commish. Being an owner who tries to win doesn't get in the way of running the league fairly to all owners. You have to want to win the right way. As commish I couldn't enjoy a win I didn't earn fairly. I'd never use commish powers or info to help my team or help or hurt anyone else's team. But I'm going to try and win just like every other owner, using info and abilities any owner would have. If that makes me "look bad," the problem is with their eyes, not my behavior.

But again, what about this scenario suggests anything about the team owner "not trying to win"? This is a gray area matter and I'm recommending staying out of it. It seems to me that enough people in this thread alone feel it IS a problem to justify, as a commissioner, being cautious. That's all I'm advocating here - not putting your own team at some disadvantage.

 

[Flash]

It simply boils down to this: When you are the commish, and you are not directly involved in a game, you never ever butt into that game. Ever.

And it's doubly worse when the outcome of the game you are butting into, affects your next game, especially the Super Bowl of your Fantasy League with REAL money on the line, because your decision to meddle is costing someone a shot at a monetary prize

It really is as simple as that.

When your the commissioner you have to walk that fine line.

That is all I am saying on this topic.

It really only is common sense.

Merry Christmas and I am done here.

 

[gianmarco]

It simply boils down to this: When you are the commish, and you are not directly involved in a game, you never ever butt into that game. Ever.And it's doubly worse when the outcome of the game you are butting into, affects your next game, especially the Super Bowl of your Fantasy League with REAL money on the line, because your decision to meddle is costing someone a shot at a monetary prizeIt really is as simple as that.When your the commissioner you have to walk that fine line. That is all I am saying on this topic.It really only is common sense.Merry Christmas and I am done here.

See ya back soon

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

It simply boils down to this: When you are the commish, and you are not directly involved in a game, you never ever butt into that game. Ever.And it's doubly worse when the outcome of the game you are butting into, affects your next game, especially the Super Bowl of your Fantasy League with REAL money on the line, because your decision to meddle is costing someone a shot at a monetary prizeIt really is as simple as that.When your the commissioner you have to walk that fine line. That is all I am saying on this topic.It really only is common sense.Merry Christmas and I am done here.

I appreciate that you hold that position. Mine is that a commissioner has to be fair to all teams-- and that includes his own. If you think the commish job comes with an oath that you won't act like a regular owner...I think that's a packmule mentality and an unfortunate situation to ask someone to enter. The commish should never use his commish powers to give an unfair advantage to any team. But he is an owner and is allowed to act just like a regular owner. No hands tied behind his back. No special path he has to walk to "prove" how fair he is. No extra limitations to avoid someone thinking he's not honest. He's no less an owner just because he takes on the role of commish. If an owner can meddle, and share ESPN info, so can he.To me, common sense dictates that if an owner can do it, a commish can do it when acting like an owner. Anything else is unfair by definition. Good luck in your remaining games.